Rick Santorum’s March wins in Alabama and Mississippi will likely get him the one-on-one contest with Mitt Romney that he so desires. But unless Santorum can stage a late rally in the upcoming states of Illinois, Texas, and California, he may look back on the events of late February and early March with a bit of famed poetry: “For all sad words of tongue or pen, the saddest are these: It might have been.”

Santorum had a decent day on Super Tuesday by winning three of ten contests, including his first victory in a Southern state (Tennessee). He continues to show impressive strength in the rural Midwest, winning in Kansas, Oklahoma, and North Dakota, and also carrying almost every rural county in Ohio. But the Buckeye State appears to be the one that got away from Santorum. It was his best chance to derail frontrunner Mitt Romney, and he missed it.

While Rick Santorum’s comeback from political oblivion after his landslide loss in the 2006 Senate race is impressive by any standard, he could have performed even better this year. He had two excellent chances to take control of the Republican race in the last four weeks, but lost both — Michigan and Ohio — by achingly close margins.

After his upset wins in Colorado, Minnesota, and Missouri on February 7, Santorum surged to a 36% to 26% lead in the Gallup national poll of Republican voters. It looked like a conservative was finally consolidating the Republican base against the more moderate Mitt Romney, and would be favored in all contests outside the Northeast and West Coast. (The Rocky Mountain states would be split between those with heavy Mormon populations like Utah and Idaho, and those without many Mormons like Colorado and New Mexico.) Based on Republican delegate counts, a scenario could easily be sketched where Santorum put together a majority based on the South, the Farm Belt, and the Southwest, just as George W. Bush did when beating back a tough challenge from John McCain in the 2000 primaries.

Santorum’s three-point loss in Michigan and excruciating one-point defeat in Ohio ended that scenario. The close loss in Michigan could be attributed to Romney’s personal ties in a state where his father was governor. But Ohio was a true opportunity. Ohio has more rural conservatives than Michigan, and no Republican has ever won the presidency without carrying Ohio. Polls in mid-February showed Santorum leads ranging from seven to 18 points.

Santorum lost his edge in Ohio with unforced errors over contraception and college education, and with a strange attack on John F. Kennedy’s 1960 plea for religious tolerance — while in Macomb County, Michigan, of all places. As Michael Barone has pointed out, Macomb is heavily Catholic and was JFK’s best suburban county outside of New England in 1960. Criticizing Kennedy (the nation’s first Catholic president) there would be like attacking Ronald Reagan while in Orange County; simply not a good idea. For a few weeks, the bad old Rick Santorum — preachy and combative — who Pennsylvania tossed out in a landslide returned. In an interview with CNN, Santorum admitted that he had gotten off-message:

I can get pretty wrapped up about, you know, how important this country is to not just providing a great future for our children, but also for the world. And sometimes I get a little, you know, say the wrong word. … And I said, you know, I made a mistake.

The “not Romney” candidate (I.e. Gingrich + Santorum) has crushed Romney in nearly every contest. That’s the only thing keeping Romney ahead, the conservative vote being split. Even with the split Santorum has won quite a few states while Romney is paying a high price ($$$) for every vote….

I notice that the “not Gingrich” candidate (i.e. Romney and Santorum) has crushed Gingrich in nearly every election. And that the “not Santorum” candidate (i.e. Gingrich and Romney) has crushed Santorum in nearly every election.

Santorum, the man who called on democrats to crossover and help him cheat? Romney has defeated the liberal media, the mega millions the unions have spent against him and even those in his own party who refuse to see his strengths. Democrats will chew Santorums senate record to pieces. As for Gingrich, is he the “streetfighter?” If so, then why can’t he win State elections?

What spin! Would it suprise you to know that Reagan reached out for democrats to vote for him also? In fact, it’s where the term “Reagan democrat” comes from.
I have to wonder if it is your ignorance of such facts, or simply a chance to smear Rick.
Just wait til Mitt actually gets vetted this fall. There are some imbeciles that will likely wish they had their votes back because they chose to be willfully ignorant.

You are missing the point. Mitt has largely won in states that will go obama in November. Rick’s leading in battleground states is very telling in that if the republican candidate can win these, he wins the election. Mitt doesn’t win these in the polls, but Rick does. Red states will go with the republican candidate and the contest will be decided in the battleground states.
In fact, if you look at most any of the state results, Mitt wins the population centers and little if anything else: he’s winning areas that democrat candidates win (and will not loose in a general election.
This doesn’t bode well for Mitt, but go ahead, vote for another McCain, Dole, etc. After all, it’s such a winning recipe.

But, guess what? Mitt will win several of those “Obama” states. Every election for a long time has been determined by the independent/moderate vote. Obama got it in ’08 and Mitt will get it in ’12. He’s walking a fine line in the primary but so far so good. As a Massachusetts “real” conservative (I assure you there are such people) I can tell you that Mitt will govern as a “real” conservative. The gainsayers will scoff, but we saw it up close and it is true.

It’s the other way around. Santorum has won in states that are conservative states that are going to vote against Pres Obama no matter what. Romney has won the swing states: NV, NH, OH, MI, AZ, FL.

Only CO and MO are swing states. I don’t think you can extrapolate the CO caucuses for a November win for Santorum. Romney is more likely to win that state because he is more likely to get the vote of independents and disaffected DEMS. And Romney hardly campaigned in CO (think he thought after his wins in NV and FL and his win CO in 2008, he had it in the bag). In MO, polls are showing that Romeny (and Santorum) are both beating Pres Obama by 9 points.

“The CNN exit polls in almost every state so far have shown that conservatives outnumber moderates by an average of roughly 60% to 40%.”

Whether these people are conservative or moderate is strictly opinion. It is what they think they are.

The definition of Conservative has changed over the past ten years. Heck it has changed over the past three. I’ve considered myself a conservative since I was old enough to know the difference. I’m not real sure what I would say to a pollster today.

Santorum is winning the rural cons, Mitt is winning the burbs and city cons. Romney is going to win the vote in the Chicago suburbs. Do those people count as the “base”? The base isn’t just in the South, we have to maintain a national base in order to beat Obama.

Well, except that Mitt is sweeping the rural cons in the West and Northeast. I have to constantly shake off the brainwashing from Rush and the gang who have convinced so many of us that the base only resides in the south and midwest.

You are correct william. I think it is fair to say that Romney has been a fighter. He has spent the last four years campaigning for republican candidates and helping them to win elections. As for the money issue, we are not stupid. Campaign dollars are donated to be spent.
It will take a war chest to defeat Obama and his Hollywood bank account. Romney will have those dollars.

Many of us like that fiscally conservative man Romney and see him as the answer to economic healing? Ed likes to post pro Santorum links and anti Romney links.
I am here to tell him he is wasting his time.

Just means that Romney is a weak candidate. Lord save us from Republican “moderates.” That’s the same thing as a Democrat, only that he will spend only $2 trillion during his first term in office rather than Obama’s $5 trillion. Big deal. Our last hope is that Romney ends up like Calvin Coolidge, a successful Republican president that doesn’t ever say anything.

As far as ‘moderates’ are concerned; please see my comment above (#5). Three years ago Romney was considered a conservative. I understand things have changed, just don’t understand how a person can still have the same views and the ground moves under their feet. That is what has happened to a lot of people.

No, 3 years ago many were rather desparate and despised McCain for his years of undercutting. Mitt has never been vetted regarding his past very liberal actual positions (pro gun control, pro abortion, pro homosexual, etc), but he will be vetted by an opponent whom he cannot outspend who will run endless video clips of Mitt saying all of those things that will sicken the base and likely supress voter turnout to some degree. There is something in Mitt’s closet to offend every segment of our base, with the exeption of Debbie, who’ld be happy to vote for him regardless of what he’s actually said and done.

There’s every evidence that Romney is going to try to balance the budget and put the economy back on track. It’s what he did in MA, with the Olympics and at Bain. He really cut out the waste in all three places.

At the Olympics he cut out the catered lunches for executive meetings, and instead bought pizza from domino’s at $5/pie and sold it at $1/slice and made $3 per pie.

His partners at Bain Capital say he was really cheap. One guy is on a video saying that he cut out a lot of the freebies; they would sneek out and go to Bain (the main company) to get catered meals. By the way, when Bain started to experience financial difficulties, Romney was brought back from Bain Capital to put Bain back on a sound financial footing and did so in 2 years.

Romney is an excellent candidate. With his education, business experience, executive ability and knowledge of the economy, he is exactly what America needs now. Unfortunately, the extremely weak GOP base is going to make the defeat of Obama a lot closer than it should be, based on his pathetic record.

Sorry, but you really need psychiatric help if you actually believe Mitt is an excellent candidate. HE ISN’T GETTING THE BASE OF THE PARTY. When he wins, it’s with 40%. If you call that strong, then you are likely one who found McCain a wonderful candidate also. McCain was despised by much of the base for years of screwing conservatives out of victories by riding in at the 11th hour with his gang of whatever. Mitt’s problem is more fundamental. He campaigned and ran his office as a liberal in many regards. He signed a permanent assault weapon ban in Mass, was pro-abortion, a strong supporter of homosexual rights, authored romneycare (and yes, promoted it as a federal model), bought into global warming, and supported TARP. He still will not sign the Susan B Anthony pro-life pledge and refused last year to sign an anti-gay marriage pledge.
The base doesn’t trust him because the only thing he has really proven is he will say absolutely anything to be elected AND he runs scorched earth campaigns against his rivals while assuring everyone he will not be harsh with obama.
It would be insanity to trust him at his word. He’s been deceptive about promoting the mass health care plan to the feds, his soliciting of funds for the olympics.
The base does not trust him.

There’s nothing to say that Santorum, as a candidate against Obama, would not carry Ohio; there is a huge difference between someone narrowly losing a primary fight and someone failing to carry the same state in the general election.

But in any event, I thought we’d retired all that “no Republican has ever won…without…” nonsense when Newt Gingrich won South Carolina (“no Republican has won the nomination in thirty years without first winning South Carolina”) and not only was not instantly anointed the party choice with all other primaries canceled, but was instead immediately sidelined and dismissed by the party regulars.

What sidelined Newt Gingrich was that he has won only two states so far, and one of them was his home state of Georgia. There’s no need for elaborate conspiracy theories involving the Republicans establishment. (Of which, by the way, the former Speaker of the House and DC lobbyist is very much a member)

Romney’s meager three-point victory in Michigan and excruciatingly thin one-point victory in Ohio portends defeat. The close victory in Michigan was the best that Romney’s personal ties in a state where his father was governor could manage. But Ohio was a true test. Ohio has more rural conservatives than Michigan, and no Republican has ever won the presidency without carrying Ohio. Romney’s one-point victory bodes ill for November as his margin of victory came in areas that have historically been carried by the Democratic nominee.

Assuming that all this is true (and to be honest I think it’s nonsensical) then what does this say about Santorum or Gingrich, who did even worse than Romney did? They must be even more unelectable. The upshot of what you are saying is that we should cancel the November elections and just award Obama another term.

It says nothing positive or negative about either Santorum or Gingrich, it says that Romney is unelectable.

But, the sad thing is Romney could have won in a cake-walk. Unfortunately, his campaign has two fatal flaws:

RomneyCare: He needed to distance himself from his signature legislation in 2008 by saying it was the wrong solution. He can’t now simultaneously claim that RomneyCare, a State run health care plan, is great for Massachusetts but RomneyCare2, a “free market” plan is great for the rest of the country. His statist plan and free market plan are mutually exclusive and you can only hold mutually exclusive views if you’re a Democrat. He doesn’t talk about his health care plan because he knows it’s a disaster waiting to happen. How can RomneyCare, and its spawn ObamaCare, not be what he’s proposing for the rest of the country? Watch Mitt contort like a pretzel as he attempts to reconcile the mutually exclusive solutions in the debates. This is a failure of hubris.

His campaign: He’s running against the base of the party. It was a puzzle until Rush mentioned the North Carolina story where the election allegedly hinges on 45,000 voters. Romney is a data guy, he would know of the polling and the analysis and his campaign does appear to be directed at those 45,000 voters. But he must not know anything about baseball… you don’t sign the best closer in the game if the rest of your pitching staff isn’t good enough to get you to the ninth inning. Those 45,000 will only matter if he stays in the game long enough for them to matter… and he won’t. He’ll be gone by the 4th inning. Unfortunately, it will be too late to bring in a reliever, the game will be lost. This is a design failure resulting from listening to experts who despise the base of the party.

It says nothing positive or negative about either Santorum or Gingrich, it says that Romney is unelectable.

It does not say that Romney is unelectable. Nor does it say that Santorum is unelectable. It says only what it says – that in a race with four candidates, three of them strong candidates, most contests are going to be won with less than a simple majority. The fact that Gingrich won “only” 47% of the primary vote in his home state of Georgia does not mean that, in a general election contest with Obama, Gingrich would lose Georgia.

Why do you imagine that it says something negative about Romney that he won “only” 38% of the popular vote in Ohio, but that it says nothing negative about Santorum that he won 37%?

He’s running against the base of the party.

That is a lie. You cannot point to a single segment of the party and say “Romney is running against them”. It’s true that evangelical Christians are not giving the bulk of their support to Romney, but this is not because Romney is “running against them”. Romney has been courting the evangelical vote quite aggressively. In any case I do not accept that “the base” means evangelical Christians.

How can RomneyCare, and its spawn ObamaCare, not be what he’s proposing for the rest of the country?

Because he is very explicitly running against Obamacare. Again, you resort to outright lies to make your case. Romney is not proposing Obamacare, or any state run healthcare system, for the rest of the country.

Perhaps you miss the point… ObamaCare is built on a foundation of RomneyCare. If Romney is running against ObamaCare then he’s also running against RomneyCare. The same free market principles that doom ObamaCare also doom RomneyCare. Now if you want to argue that the people of Massachusetts must be locked into a failing health care plan while the rest of the country can access a better plan then you certainly may but you, like Romney, would then be holding mutually exclusive positions.

I know it’s difficult but think down the road to the debates when the Democratic Party operative starts asking why RomneyCare is good for Mass but a plan built on it is bad for the Country. The best answer you’ll get is “the way the bill was passed” and then you ultimately get Romney agreeing to find a way to nationalize health care. Doesn’t the nation deserve the best health care plan Mr. Romney? Doesn’t the nation deserve RomneyCare? Why yes it does says Mitt and Romney loses in a landslide.

There is no possibility that Romney can escape the trap of his own making in front of millions of viewers seeing him for the first time, particularly when the other Democratic Party operatives on the post debate panel start comparing the many, many similarities in ObamaCare and RomneyCare. Romney has no chance and he’s never had a chance. He’s a front-runner to failure.

Your point keeps changing, so it’s easy for me to miss it. You made other claims which I responded to. Are you conceding the point on those, or just ignoring what I said and moving on to a new talking point?

Voters in November who care about Obamacare (a minority of voters) will have a very clear choice if Romney is the nominee. They can vote for Obama (who supports Obamacare, obviously) or vote for Romney (who opposes it). I don’t see where the confusion is supposed to creep in.

It says nothing positive or negative about either Santorum or Gingrich, it says that Romney is unelectable.

I’m typing about the Presidential election, you typing about winning the Republican nomination. Winning the nomination doesn’t get Mitt elected to anything. I didn’t feel the need to point out your error. My mistake.

He’s running against the base of the party. That is a lie.

The 70% not-Romney vote disagrees. I’m sorry to inform you that disagreeing with you doesn’t equate to lying.

Romney’s your guy, good for you. My point, which you can’t seem to grasp, is that he could have been a contender. Unfortunately, Mitt lost the election in the summer of 2010 when all those people showed up at Democratic Politicians’ Town Hall events to protest the imminent passage of ObamaCare. Whether you like it or not, RomneyCare and ObamaCare are inextricably tied. The public disapproves of ObamaCare by a wide margin (+60%) and they’re going to disapprove of its creator, Mitt Romney, by a wider margin. If ObamaCare were popular then Obama would be campaigning on it and taking credit. Since it’s not, he and his 10,000 media lackeys will be talking about how ObamaCare is just a carbon copy of RomneyCare… a program that worked so well in Massachusetts and that Romney is on record as saying could be a model for nationalized health care. Mitt should not have run, he cannot beat Obama. Mr. Inevitable is Unelectable.

I’m typing about the Presidential election, you typing about winning the Republican nomination. Winning the nomination doesn’t get Mitt elected to anything.

Obviously that’s true. But you specifically claimed that Romney’s one point victory over Santorum in Ohio meant that he, Romney, would certainly lose to Obama in November. And that makes no sense at all.

The 70% not-Romney vote disagrees.

There is no “70% non-Romney vote”. There is the Romney vote, the Santorum vote, the Gingrich vote, and the Paul vote. You assume, based on nothing but your own emotions, that the Santorum, Gingrich and Paul voters are united in their opposition to Romney, and that if Gingrich and Paul dropped out, that Santorum would take all the votes currently going to those candidates. This is a lie.

Another lie is that there exists a “70% non-Romney vote”. Romney has won a little over 39% of the popular vote so far. If Gingrich and Paul drop out and Romney gets only one third of their supporters, that would put him over 50%.

But you specifically claimed that Romney’s one point victory over Santorum in Ohio meant that he, Romney, would certainly lose to Obama in November. And that makes no sense at all.

Really? I cut and paste… “Romney’s one-point victory bodes ill for November as his margin of victory came in areas that have historically been carried by the Democratic nominee“.

Will Romney be the Democratic nominee? If yes, then you’re correct. If not, then Romney’s lack of support in rural Ohio will be problematic because his support in this primary will be voting for Obama. Perhaps you should spend less time calling people liars and concentrate on more productive activities.

Romney’s experience with Romneycare will allow him to confront Pres Obama in any debate. Romney was really hands on, studied the MA problems, and helped craft a program (which was based on the Heritage Foundation model) to tackle the MA problems. It was a 70-page bill, not the 2000+ page monstrosity that is Obamacare. It doesn’t have a rationing board, nor an HHS to dictate what insurance companies must provide.

The reason why Romney is ahead is that he has pummeled every opponent with attack ads. Which proves that attack ads work. But Romney is a very weak candidate because the base of the party clealy doesn’t want him. However, the “establishment” clearly has chose to push him onto us. Why doesn’t Romney run on his record? It is because his record as governor was decidedly Left Wing? Liberal judges, gay marriage, and Romneycare.

Besides Santorums misteps, his other weakness is that he doesn’t have full slates of delegates in all the states. Really a better alternative to Mitt, is Newt becasue Newt has full slates.

Romney is a very weak candidate because the base of the party clealy doesn’t want him.

If you think that the base of the party is made up of evangelical Christians who have abortion as their number one issue, then that is correct. If you take a different view of who makes up the base of the party, it’s incorrect.

Since the party “base” is the voters in GOP primaries, you have to say Romney is their choice so far – although far from a unanimous choice. He’s won the most votes.

It is silly to assume Gingrich and Santorum are splitting the same votes. Many of Gingrich’s supporters think Santorum is a sanctimonious dunderhead, and many of Santorum’s voters are appalled at Gingrich’s personal history. At least half of Gingrich supporters list Romney as their second choice, and if Newt dropped out the history shows even more of them would accrue to the frontrunner.

Now, if you want to define the “base” as the lunatic fringe element that comments on the internet, yeah, he’s failed to win that one. But among self-described conservatives who have voted so far, Romney is winning.

The bigger picture is nobody in the GOP can win general election in November. The Gop has splintered into various factions of conservative and evangelical..the result of Rove / Bush pulling strings and manipulating GOP base for 8+ years.
The only candidate that can garner core support will not appeal to swing vote, the candidate that can garner swing support will not appeal to the core. If the GOP cannot get their act together we will have another 4 years of President Obama.

Those statements on social issues weren’t “unforced errors” by Santorum. Those are what really what he believes in his heart. Listening to Santorum railing against birth control, premarital sex and Internet gambling, you get the distinct impression that those are what his Presidency would really be about.

And this past week, he did it again, by pledging that as President he would ban adult pornography on cable TV and the Internet (good luck with that):

He wasn’t baited by the left-wing news media into talking about that. He issued that as a policy statement of his own free will.

Santorum’s supporters claim Romney is a moderate who is trying to talk like a conservative. They should look in the mirror. Santorum is a Religious Right culture warrior who is trying to talk like an economic populist.

“Santorum’s supporters claim Romney is a moderate who is trying to talk like a conservative. They should look in the mirror. Santorum is a Religious Right culture warrior who is trying to talk like an economic populist.”

Exactly. This is why his nomination would be lethal for the Republican Party. Romney’s gaffe’s about his wife’s Cadillacs are trivial by comparison. David Axelrod is salivating.

I have long disliked Santorum’s air of smug sanctimony. And I don’t think he’s much of a conservative either once you strip away his social con bona fides. Frankly, I’m not sure I’d trust him alone in the Oval with the power of the Executive Order. The temptation to re-shape the nation’s social fabric just might prove irresistible and I’ve had quite enough of government by presidential fiat, thanks. That being said, if he’s the nominee, I’ll vote for him. I’ll do it reluctantly, but I’ll vote for him. Sad that it’s come to this.

“Equality, rightly understood as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences; wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism.”

Yeah, how wrong Goldwater was! He was the bitter medicine the country refused to take. If you gave your time and vote to Lyndon of the Great Society fame, you have made your contribution to Utopia. As was sown, so is being reaped.

As a Goldwater supporter who was THERE, Barry was a terrible candidate. He made no effort at all to unite the Republicans: he never could hide his scorn for Rockefeller and the feeling was mutual. The nomination fight and convention were like civil war, a bloodbath from which he probably couldn’t have recovered in an ideal situation. And he made several statements which invited the Democrats to label him as an extremist and – worst of all – liable to severely escalate the Vietnam War.

A huge shift occurred, unnoticed, in the Republican primary. The voters in Alabama, and Mississippi, gave 2/3 of their votes to Roman Catholics. Bible belt Protestants voted for Catholics, not because of their religion, but because of their shared views on social policy, and the horrible economy.

At this stage of the race, we know that Romney can, and has, outspent his opponents 5 – 15 to one. If things continue, he will be broke after a truly brokered convention, while his opponent, Obama, can tap into hundreds of millions, of soft money. Romney’s advantage will vanish, by summer. Karl Rove is wrong.

And IMHO, both Newt and Santorum suffer from foot-in-mouth disease. They needlessly place divisive issues, e.g. contraception, pornography, in the political spot light. Some fear that their personal beliefs will become a theocratic governance. Oddly the same people ignore Obama’s hard left ideological drive to destroy our energy industries via green regulation, or force religious institutions, for the first time in American history, to pay for what they judge as homicide, abortion.

Romney came to power in perhaps the most Democratically controlled liberal state in the Union. It should, therefore, be difficult for any conservative to judge what this politician would do in a right-center national office. His flip flops are known, if understandable.

George Will, a thinker, offered a thought today. There is only so much political capital available to either party and the Republicans are spending it all on the Presidential office, due to flawed candidates. The Repubs run the risk of losing both houses of Congress, and the next SC judge, by this strategy. The party and the candidates should consider this: both Houses of Congress and the White House in liberal Democratic control.

First of all, to be clear: Will said it MIGHT come to that point, he later made clear he does NOT think it is there now. Frankly, unless we take House, Senate, AND White House, America is in big trouble very soon.

Romney’s no one’s idea candidate – even his biggest supporters have to admit he hasn’t run a smooth campaign. But he’s outspent his opponents because he outdid them fundraising and organizing. The lion’s share of his support doesn’t come from the traditional “establishment” GOP money men, either, he raised it from people he’s made rich, or whose businesses he turned around.

There was a time in America when we admired men like that, who had succeeded on their own and earned the respect of other businessmen. We held those hard working smart businessmen in high esteem, even in awe, and aspired one day to be a little more like them. Success was a good thing.

How does a supposed conservative criticize a candidate for spending the money he legally raised from voluntary donors?

It looked like a conservative was finally consolidating the Republican base against the more moderate Mitt Romney

This stuff is repeated so endlessly that it has taken on the status of “fact”, but I have to point out that there is basically no evidence that Santorum is more conservative than Romney. The real differences between the two men are trivial.

Don’t know where to post this, but it’s a great read:
The Night Watchman
Once upon a time the government had a vast scrap yard in the middle of a desert. Congress said, “Someone may steal from it at night.” So they created a night watchman position and hired a person for the job. Then Congress said “How does the watchman do his job without instruction?” So they created a planning department and hired two people, one person to write the instructions, and one person to do time studies.
Then Congress said, “How will we know the night watchman is doing the tasks correctly?”
So they created a Quality Control department and hired two people. One was to do the studies and one was to write the reports. Then Congress said, “How are these people going to get paid?” So they created two positions: a time keeper and a payroll officer then hired two people. Then Congress said, “Who will be accountable for all of these people?” So they created an administrative section and hired three people, an Administrative Officer, Assistant Administrative Officer, and a Legal Secretary.
Then Congress said, “We have had this command in operation for one year and we are $918,000 over budget, we must cut back.” So they laid-off the night watchman.
NOW slowly, let it sink in.
Quietly, we go like sheep to slaughter…Does anybody remember the reason given for the establishment of the DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY during the Carter administration?
Anybody? Anything? No? Didn’t think so!
Bottom line is, we’ve spent several hundred billion dollars in support of an agency….the reason for which not one person who reads this can remember!
Ready??
It was very simple… and at the time, everybody thought it very appropriate The Department of Energy was instituted on 8/04/1977, TO LESSEN OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL.
Hey, pretty efficient, huh???
AND NOW IT’S 2011 — 34 YEARS LATER — AND THE BUDGET FOR THIS “NECESSARY” DEPARTMENT IS AT $24.2 BILLION A YEAR. IT HAS 16,000 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES AND APPROXIMATELY 100,000 CONTRACT EMPLOYEES; AND LOOK AT THE JOB IT HAS DONE!
(THIS IS WHERE YOU SLAP YOUR FOREHEAD AND SAY, “WHAT WERE THEY THINKING?”)
33 years ago 30% of our oil consumption was foreign imports. Today 70% of our oil consumption is foreign imports.
Ah, yes — good old Federal bureaucracy.
NOW, WE HAVE TURNED OVER THE BANKING SYSTEM, HEALTH CARE, AND THE AUTO INDUSTRY TO THE SAME GOVERNMENT?

This explains and documents the differences between so-called Romneycare and Obamacare. Find out why Santorum is either dishonest or does not know how to read. Must viewing for anyone who plans to vote.

Romney can beat Obama. Santorum would lose the white female vote and we would get Obama again.

The evangelicals have to stop praying for the end of times and hoping for a religous extremist as president. Thank God, (no pun intended), it isn’t going to happen. Spirituality is wonderful. Intolerance and religious certainty is a dead end for all, including our nation.

We cannot foresee events in the future, and events more than anything else determine elections. It is entirely possible things will transpire so that any Republican could beat Obama. But we can’t count on the unforeseeable – this election is too important. We can’t endure another 1-3 Obama appointments to the Supreme Court, or 2-300 more lifetime appointments to lower federal courts which will determine the course of constitutional law for the next several decades. We can’t afford more rule by fiat, ignoring and superseding statutory authority as his EPA, DOJ, FTC, FCC, and NLRB have already done.

Romney has the best chance to win, and is the most prepared by experience to perform the drastic reorganization which must be done to bring spending in line.

Since I agree with almost nothing Santorem believes in and I think Newt is a spoiled brat who has never done much of anything except tell people how smart he is, I am hoping the voters will like Romney or the Republicans will trot out a sure winner like General Petraeus. (I saw an old Eisenhower movie on the military channel last night)
It would be just too hard to face 4 years of moralist preaching….sort of reaching back to the puritans of Massachusetts. Many of us were thrilled when “the pill” was invented and, while we aren’t viewers of porn, we respect the rights of people who do view. I dislike obama intensely but it would be hard to defend Santorem.
I taught a few kids who were mini Newts. They found out their IQs and coasted on them for years.

PS to my previous post. Yes, Romney probably won’t attract the so-called base of the GOP but neither will a candidate selected by that base attract a lot of voters in the United States. Conservatives conveniently forget that Independents comprise 40% of voters these days.

Santorum keeps stepping into “it” on a daily basis and I agree with your assessment on both Santorum and Newt the GOP’s resident cry babies. And like Newt, some of Santorum’s past statements may come back to haunt him like the video where he endorses Romney some four years ago.

Regarding those “independent” voters, it might be mentioned that most of them represent the typical voter… Slightly right of center.